K Ahmed1, T M Connelly2, K Bashar3, S R Walsh4. 1. Department of Surgery, Lambe Institute for Translational Research, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland. Khalidmd20@gmail.com. 2. Department of Surgery, Lambe Institute for Translational Research, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland. Tara_conn@hotmail.com. 3. Department of Vascular Surgery, University Hospital Limerick, Limerick, Ireland. khalid@live.ie. 4. Department of Surgery, Lambe Institute for Translational Research, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland. STEWARTREDMOND.WALSH@NUIGALWAY.IE.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Surgical site infection (SSI) is one of the main causes of postoperative morbidity and mortality. Appendectomy for acute appendicitis is one of the most commonly performed surgical interventions worldwide. The use of ring retractors to protect the wound edge from contaminated intra-abdominal contents may be an effective method to reduce SSI. AIM: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to determine whether the use of wound ring retractors reduces SSI rates after open appendectomy. METHODS: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analysis of ring retractors was undertaken using the PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Cochrane RCTs Central Register, CINAHL, and ISRCTN registry were searched for eligible studies. Only studies in which open appendectomy was undertaken were included. The Cochrane Collaboration's RevMan 5.3 was used for analysis. A subgroup analysis by degree of appendiceal inflammation was performed. RESULTS: Four RCTs inclusive of 939 patients met eligibility requirements. One trial used single ring while three used double ring protectors. Differences in the definition of SSI, skin preparation, and type and duration of prophylactic antibiotic were found between the 4 studies. The use of ring retractors show some evidence of SSI reduction risk ratio 0.44 [95 % CI (0.21, 0.90)]. On sub-analysis, ring retractor was more effective in more severe degrees of appendiceal inflammation i.e., the contaminated group. CONCLUSION: Our review suggests some benefit in using ring retractors to reduce SSI post appendectomy; however the small number and variable quality of the studies suggest the need for more RCTs to confirm these results.
INTRODUCTION: Surgical site infection (SSI) is one of the main causes of postoperative morbidity and mortality. Appendectomy for acute appendicitis is one of the most commonly performed surgical interventions worldwide. The use of ring retractors to protect the wound edge from contaminated intra-abdominal contents may be an effective method to reduce SSI. AIM: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to determine whether the use of wound ring retractors reduces SSI rates after open appendectomy. METHODS: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analysis of ring retractors was undertaken using the PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Cochrane RCTs Central Register, CINAHL, and ISRCTN registry were searched for eligible studies. Only studies in which open appendectomy was undertaken were included. The Cochrane Collaboration's RevMan 5.3 was used for analysis. A subgroup analysis by degree of appendiceal inflammation was performed. RESULTS: Four RCTs inclusive of 939 patients met eligibility requirements. One trial used single ring while three used double ring protectors. Differences in the definition of SSI, skin preparation, and type and duration of prophylactic antibiotic were found between the 4 studies. The use of ring retractors show some evidence of SSI reduction risk ratio 0.44 [95 % CI (0.21, 0.90)]. On sub-analysis, ring retractor was more effective in more severe degrees of appendiceal inflammation i.e., the contaminated group. CONCLUSION: Our review suggests some benefit in using ring retractors to reduce SSI post appendectomy; however the small number and variable quality of the studies suggest the need for more RCTs to confirm these results.
Entities:
Keywords:
Ring protector; Surgical site infections; Surgical wound protector
Authors: James S Harrop; John C Styliaras; Yinn Cher Ooi; Kristen E Radcliff; Alexander R Vaccaro; Chengyuan Wu Journal: J Am Acad Orthop Surg Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 3.020
Authors: Mustafa T Ozer; Taner Yigit; Ali I Uzar; Mehmet Eryilmaz; Orhan Kozak; Sadettin Cetiner; Ismail Arslan; Turgut Tufan Journal: Saudi Med J Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 1.484
Authors: Adrian Gheorghe; Melanie Calvert; Thomas D Pinkney; Benjamin R Fletcher; David C Bartlett; William J Hawkins; Tony Mak; Haney Youssef; Sue Wilson Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Salomone Di Saverio; Mauro Podda; Belinda De Simone; Marco Ceresoli; Goran Augustin; Alice Gori; Marja Boermeester; Massimo Sartelli; Federico Coccolini; Antonio Tarasconi; Nicola De' Angelis; Dieter G Weber; Matti Tolonen; Arianna Birindelli; Walter Biffl; Ernest E Moore; Michael Kelly; Kjetil Soreide; Jeffry Kashuk; Richard Ten Broek; Carlos Augusto Gomes; Michael Sugrue; Richard Justin Davies; Dimitrios Damaskos; Ari Leppäniemi; Andrew Kirkpatrick; Andrew B Peitzman; Gustavo P Fraga; Ronald V Maier; Raul Coimbra; Massimo Chiarugi; Gabriele Sganga; Adolfo Pisanu; Gian Luigi De' Angelis; Edward Tan; Harry Van Goor; Francesco Pata; Isidoro Di Carlo; Osvaldo Chiara; Andrey Litvin; Fabio C Campanile; Boris Sakakushev; Gia Tomadze; Zaza Demetrashvili; Rifat Latifi; Fakri Abu-Zidan; Oreste Romeo; Helmut Segovia-Lohse; Gianluca Baiocchi; David Costa; Sandro Rizoli; Zsolt J Balogh; Cino Bendinelli; Thomas Scalea; Rao Ivatury; George Velmahos; Roland Andersson; Yoram Kluger; Luca Ansaloni; Fausto Catena Journal: World J Emerg Surg Date: 2020-04-15 Impact factor: 5.469